■发表的研究的合法性面临着掠夺性期刊的真正挑战。这些期刊不仅分发不充分的文章,而且还破坏了对高质量内容的认可和引用的前景。这是必要的,然而,区分掠夺性期刊和信誉良好的开放获取期刊。全球范围内的反掠夺性运动旨在提高对此类期刊的认识。因此,我们的目标是评估意识,态度,以及苏丹整形外科医生关于掠夺性和开放获取出版的做法。
■在2023年1月至4月期间进行的这项横断面电子调查涉及苏丹整形外科医生。调查,包括五个领域来衡量知识,态度,以及与掠夺性和开放获取出版有关的做法,通过苏丹骨科医师协会的电子邮件分发列表在561名注册外科医生中共享。目标样本量为286。分类变量使用频率报告,而连续变量以中位数和四分位数范围表示。非参数检验和序数回归用于推理统计。
■在561名外科医生中,104名参与者填写了问卷,产生18.5%的应答率。大约49%的人表现出知识贫乏,56%的人不熟悉“掠夺性期刊”这一术语,74%的人不知道Beall的名单。60%的参与者对开放获取和掠夺性期刊的出版总体态度是中立的。只有26%的人展示了良好的整体出版实践。较高的知识得分与态度和实践得分呈正相关。有序回归分析确定了变量,如大学医院的就业,较高的学术地位,出版经验,在资源充足的国家工作,作为增加更高知识可能性的因素,态度,和练习分数。
■大多数研究参与者报告说,对掠夺性期刊的了解非常低,以及它们对科学出版物的完整性和质量可能产生的不利影响。因此,需要对掠夺性出版实践在骨科中的负面影响进行教育。
UNASSIGNED: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.
UNASSIGNED: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term \"predatory journals,\" and 74% unaware of Beall\'s list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.
UNASSIGNED: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.